On 24.09.2019 16:14, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 20.09.19 18:08, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.09.2019 10:52, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/softirq.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/softirq.h >>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ >>> /* Low-latency softirqs come first in the following list. */ >>> enum { >>> TIMER_SOFTIRQ = 0, >>> + SCHED_SLAVE_SOFTIRQ, >>> SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ, >>> NEW_TLBFLUSH_CLOCK_PERIOD_SOFTIRQ, >>> RCU_SOFTIRQ, >> >> Seeing the comment, is the insertion you do as well as the pre- >> existing placement of SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ still appropriate with >> the rendezvous-ing you introduce? > > Putting SCHED_SLAVE_SOFTIRQ before SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ is done on purpose, > as I want slave events to have higher priority than normal schedule > events. > > Whether both want to be at that place or should be moved is something > which should be considered carefully. Is it okay to postpone that > question?
Sure, it was just something that occurred to me when the comment caught my attention. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel